Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Hanel HANSON, Appellant. Boro Recycling Inc., Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 30, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from his employment at a bottle recycling plant for allegedly participating in a scheme wherein deposit bottles were segregated and sold to a third party who would also claim a reimbursement for the return of the bottles. Thereafter the parties entered into an agreement whereby claimant was rehired at a different location without back pay, but claimant became dissatisfied with the terms of the agreement. An ensuing arbitration hearing, at which the parties had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue of claimant's misconduct, resulted in a finding that claimant served as a lookout while his co-workers segregated the bottles for the unauthorized transfers and, therefore, claimant was properly discharged. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, bound by the arbitrator's findings of fact (see, Matter of Obafemi [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 905, 672 N.Y.S.2d 506), concluded that claimant's actions constituted disqualifying misconduct. We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant's act of assisting in misappropriating property rose to the level of disqualifying misconduct under the circumstances presented here (see, e.g., Matter of Mallard [Sweeney], 245 A.D.2d 932, 666 N.Y.S.2d 858; Matter of Dendy [Hartnett], 172 A.D.2d 936, 568 N.Y.S.2d 216).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: October 29, 1998
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)